Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Epidemiol Prev ; 47(6): 344-353, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38314544

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: to investigate vaccine uptake among pregnant women during the 2nd and 3rd trimester of pregnancy. To describe the factors influencing vaccine uptake during pregnancy, comparing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of pregnant women who were vaccinated during the 2nd or 3rd trimester with those who were not vaccinated, despite having the indication for vaccination. DESIGN: observational study with a cross-sectional approach and prevalence estimation in the population of women who gave birth in the study period, through record linkages between the ministry information flow Birth assistance certificate, the Regional vaccination register and the Italian flow for SARS-CoV-2 infections. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the study included all the 4,772 pregnant women living in Trentino (north-east Italy), who were in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy between the 5th May 2021 and the 28th February 2022 and who delivered in Trentino. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: vaccine uptake among pregnant women during the 2nd and 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Results: 33.3% of pregnant women got vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine during the 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Independent factors associated with vaccine uptake in the 2nd or 3rd trimester were the mother's citizenship, educational level, occupational status and age. CONCLUSIONS: the proportion of women who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was low. The results are important to start efficient actions to promote vaccination in pregnant women, particularly in the most vulnerable ones (unemployed, foreigners and with a low educational level), who appear to be less vaccinated frequently.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnant Women , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , Italy/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
2.
Breast ; 50: 135-140, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31607526

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: The Trento screening program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening based on evidence that DBT improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography; an evaluation of the transition to DBT is reported in this pilot study. METHODS: Prospective implementation of DBT screening included women aged ≥50 years who attended the Trento program for biennial screening. DBT screening included DBT acquisitions with synthesized 2D-images. A historical cohort of women who attended the program (January 2013-October 2014) and received digital mammography (DM) provided a comparison group. Independent double-reading (with a third arbitrating read for discordance) was used for DBT and DM screening. Screening outcomes included cancer detection rate (CDR/1000 screens), percentage of screens recalled to assessment (recall%), interval cancer rate (ICR/1000 screens) at 2-year follow-up, and screening sensitivity. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) examined outcomes for DBT versus DM screening. RESULTS: From women aged 50-69 years who accepted an invitation to screening (October 2014-October 2016) 46,343 comprised the DBT-screened group: amongst these 402 BCs (includes 50 ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS)) were detected (CDR 8.67/1000), whereas 205 BCs (includes 33 DCIS) were detected amongst 37,436 DM screens (CDR 5.48/1000) [RR for CDR:1.58 (1.34-1.87)]. Recall% was lower for DBT (2.55%) than DM (3.21%) [RR:0.79 (0.73-0.86)]. Compared to DM, DBT screening increased CDR for stage I-II BC, for all tumour size and grade categories, and for node-negative BC, but did not increase CDR for DCIS. Estimated ICR for DBT was 1.1/1000 whereas ICR for DM was 1.36/1000 [RR:0.81 (0.55-1.19)]. Screening sensitivity was 88.74% for DBT versus 80.08% for DM [RR:1.11 (0.94-1.31)]. CONCLUSION: DBT significantly improved early-detection measures but did not significantly reduce ICR (relative to DM screening), suggesting that it could add benefit as well as adding over-detection in population BC screening.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data , Mammography/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Mammography/methods , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pilot Projects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...